Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train (HST) 

Program Environmental Impact Report/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 

Summary 

Prepared by: 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

925 L Street, Suite 1425 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Contact: Mr. Dan Leavitt 

916/322-1419 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1120 Vermont Avenue N.W. M/S 20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Contact: Mr. David Valenstein 

202/493-6368 

July 2007 
 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad 

Administration. 2007. Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train 

(HST) Program Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIR/EIS). Draft. Summary. July. Sacramento, CA and 

Washington, D.C. 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-1

S-1 SUMMARY 

S-1.1 Introduction and Background 

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) proposes a high-speed train (HST) system for 

intercity travel in California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco 

Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. The HST 

system is projected to carry as many as 117 million passengers annually by the year 2030. The Authority 

adopted a final business plan (Business Plan) in June 2000, which examined the economic viability of a 

train system capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour (mph) (322 kilometers per hour [kph]) on 

a fully grade-separated track, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated control systems. The 

Authority and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) completed a statewide program environmental 

impact report/ environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) in November 2005 as the first phase of a tiered 

environmental review process for the proposed HST system. The HST Alternative was selected by the 

Authority and FRA. As part of this selection, the Authority and FRA defined a broad corridor between the 

Bay Area and Central Valley for additional review at the program level (Figure S.1-1). 

Following the certification of the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority initiated this Bay Area to 

Central Valley environmental review process for compliance with state and federal laws, in particular the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Bay 

Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS (Program EIR/EIS) further examines this region as the next 

phase of the tiered environmental review process. The Authority is the project sponsor and the lead 

agency for purposes of the state CEQA requirements. The FRA is the federal lead agency for compliance 

under NEPA. 

This Bay Area to Central Valley study region is generally bounded by (and includes) the Pacheco Pass 

(State Route 152 [SR 152]) to the south, the Altamont Pass (Interstate 580 [I-580]) to the north, the 

BNSF corridor to the east, and the Caltrain corridor to the west1

 (Figure S.1-1). The Authority directed 

staff to "prepare a separate program-level EIR to identify a preferred alignment within the broad corridor 

between and including the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass for the HST segment connecting the San 

Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley.” This Program EIR/EIS evaluates the potential impacts of 

proposed alignment alternatives and station location options in the study region and defines general 

mitigation strategies to address potentially significant adverse impacts. Future tiered, site-specific 

project-level environmental documents will assess the impacts of constructing and implementing 

individual HST projects (i.e., portions of the HST system). 

The Authority envisions seeking possible future federal financial support for the system, which may be 

provided through the FRA. The FRA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) have several loan 

and loan guarantee programs that might be potential sources of future financial assistance. Although no 

grant or federal bond financing programs currently provide such support, several proposals to create such 

programs are pending before Congress. In addition to possible funding, a Rule of Particular Applicability 

is likely to be required from the FRA to establish safety standards for the proposed HST system for 

operating at speeds over 200 mph (322 kph) and for operations in shared-use rail corridors. 

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Program EIR/EIS was released November 14, 2005. The Notice 

of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2005. The scoping process 

included 12 officially noticed agency and public scoping meetings in late November and early December 

 

1 Highway route numbers are provided only as a convenient reference for the reader, not as a limitation on the corridor to be 

considered. 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-2

2005. Recognizing the important relationship of HST alignments and stations to a regional rail system in 

the northern California area, the HST scoping meetings were held in conjunction with public meetings on 

the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan initiation meetings. More than 500 people participated in 

the scoping meetings. During the scoping process, the Authority gathered information from agencies and 

interested members of the public regarding their questions and concerns related to the scope of this 

Program EIR/EIS. 

Following the issuance of the NOI and NOP and the scoping meetings, the Authority and the FRA formed 

a working group made up of representatives from 27 federal and state agencies to consult during the 

environmental review process. The interagency group met during the development of this Draft Program 

EIR/EIS to discuss major issues from the perspective of these agencies and to provide input to the lead 

agencies to help focus the analysis and streamline the review process. 

The federal and state agency representatives included in this process were asked to provide input for the 

following specific areas. 

• Scope of the Program EIR/EIS. 

• Purpose and need statement/program objectives. 

• Technical methods of analysis and study area definition. 

• Substantive issues of particular concern. 

• Sources of information and data relevant to their agencies. 

• Impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies. 

• Identification of possible alternatives to be analyzed in the Program EIR/EIS. 

• Procedural requirements and permits or approvals necessary for subsequent phases of environmental 

review. 

The Authority also held numerous meetings with and invited input from regional and local agencies in the 

region potentially affected by the proposed HST system. Meetings of the Authority governing board were 

also a forum for providing information about the environmental process. These meetings were held in 

major cities in the project area to provide a convenient opportunity for regional and local participation 

and input. 

Comments received during this scoping process assisted the Authority and FRA in their review and 

evaluation of possible HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options and identification of those 

to be carried forward for environmental evaluation in this Program EIR/EIS (described in Section S-4). 

S-1.2 Purpose of and Need for a High-Speed Train System in California 

S-1.2.1 Purpose 

This Program EIR/EIS identifies and evaluates HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options 

within and related to the Bay Area to Central Valley study region as part of a statewide HST system. The 

purpose of the Bay Area HST is to provide a reliable high-speed electrified train system that links the 

major Bay Area cities to the Central Valley, Sacramento, and southern California and that delivers 

predictable and consistent travel times. Further objectives are to provide interfaces between the HST 

system and major commercial airports, mass transit, and the highway network and to relieve capacity 

constraints of the existing transportation system in a manner sensitive to and protective of the Bay Area’s 

and California’s unique natural resources. 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-3

S-1.2.2 Statewide Need2

The capacity of California’s intercity transportation system is insufficient to meet existing and future 

demand, and the current and projected future congestion of the system will continue to result in 

deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased travel times. The system has not kept pace 

with the tremendous increase in population, economic activity, and tourism in the state. The interstate 

highway system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail system serving the intercity travel 

market are operating at or near capacity and will require large public investments for maintenance and 

expansion to meet existing demand and future growth over the next 20 years and beyond. Moreover, 

the ability to expand many major highways and key airports is uncertain; some needed expansions may 

be impractical or may be constrained by physical, political, or other factors. Simply stated, the need for 

improvements serving intercity travel in California relates to the following issues. 

• Future growth in demand for intercity travel. 

• Capacity constraints that will result in increasing congestion and travel delays. 

• Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather conditions, accidents, and other 

factors that affect the quality of life and economic well-being of residents, businesses, and tourism in 

California. 

• Reduced mobility as a result of increasing demand on limited modal connections between major 

airports, transit systems, and passenger rail in the state. 

• Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources as a result of expanded 

highways and airports. 

S-1.2.3 Regional Need 

The needs of the Bay Area to Central Valley region are similar to those identified for the statewide HST 

system. 

A. REGIONAL GROWTH 

Today, the nine-county Bay Area is home to nearly 7 million people and more than 3 million jobs. By 

2050, the region's population is anticipated to grow by more than 40%, for a total of 10 million 

people. This population growth will put tremendous pressure on the existing transportation network, 

and the peak travel periods are expected to encompass many more hours of the day. For example, 

MTC's 2000 San Francisco Bay Crossing Study projected the Bay Bridge peak period to more than 

double from 1.5 hours in 2000 to 3.5 hours by 2020. 

Additionally, growth in the region is taking place in the form of dispersed land uses that rely on 

individual vehicles for most trips. Without improved and more extensive transit systems leading to 

the main Central Valley cities and connecting them to each other, there will be little chance for these 

cities to move toward compact transit-oriented development. 

B. REGIONAL CONGESTION 

The Bay Area already experiences the second-worst traffic congestion in the country, after 

Los Angeles. Congestion is expected to worsen over the next 25 years, especially in existing 

hotspots. The combination of significant population growth, dispersed development patterns 

(requiring a car for most trips), highway facilities that cannot keep pace with traffic demands, and 

large increases in interregional commuting, has worsened and will continue to worsen congestion 

levels and the associated environmental and economic impacts. 

 

2

 Also presented in the statewide program EIR/EIS ( California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2005). 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-4

C. ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS 

The adverse economic impacts of congestion and inadequate transportation/transit access are 

already apparent. The 150,000 daily hours of Bay Area commute congestion had an estimated 

cost of $2.6 billion in 2003 alone. When transportation access to urban and suburban centers 

becomes too difficult, employers are likely to move jobs to areas where land prices are lower and 

workers' commutes might be shorter. Without better passenger rail access, major job growth will 

continue to decentralize and move to places like the Central Valley. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 

Without an expanded rail and transit network and more compact development, there may be 

greater adverse effects on the natural environment. More than 400,000 acres (ac) (161,874 

hectares [ha]) of land in the Bay Area are at risk from development. Promoting development in 

walkable communities near HST, intermodal, and other transit stations offers the best 

opportunity for taking development pressure off open space and farms. Demand for an 

additional 550,000 homes near transit in the Bay Area by 2030 is anticipated, but transit-oriented 

development functions well only when transit service is sufficiently frequent and reliable that 

residents can reduce the length and the number of car trips they take. 

An additional growing environmental concern is global climate change, and the transportation 

sector is responsible for about 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and up to 50% in 

the Bay Area. Because these emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned, 

offering effective and efficient transportation choices can result in reduced driving and reduced 

emissions. 

S-1.3 Alternatives 

The Program EIR/EIS evaluates the No Project, and HST Alternative Alignments and station locations 

options, and representative HST Network Alternatives within the Bay Area to Central Valley region. 

S-1.3.1 No Project Alternative 

This Program EIR/EIS compares the No Project and HST Alternative Alignments (Figure S.4-1). For the 

No Project Alternative, both existing and future conditions (2030) are considered. The No Project 

Alternative represents the region’s transportation system (highway, air, and conventional rail) as it 

existed in 1999–2000 and as it would be in 2030 with the addition of transportation projects currently 

programmed for implementation (already in funded programs/financially constrained plans) according to 

the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), regional transportation plans (RTPs) for all 

modes of travel, airport improvement plans, and intercity passenger rail plans. 

The No Project Alternative addresses the geographic area serving the same intercity travel market as the 

proposed HST Alignment Alternatives in the region, as described below. The No Project Alternative is 

assessed for how it would satisfy the purpose and need and program objectives for the HST system 

regarding congestion, safety, reliability, and travel times. 

S-1.3.2 High-Speed Train Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options 

The HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options in the region represent the proposed action. 

A statewide HST system was selected by the Authority and FRA as the preferred system alternative in the 

statewide Program Final EIR/EIS. It has been identified on a statewide basis as the environmentally 

preferred alternative under NEPA, as well as the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-5

The HST system would consist of steel train tracks on a trackbed placed at grade level, on an aerial 

structure, in a tunnel, or in a trench. Trainsets would travel on the trackbed between stations and would 

be powered by electrical power supplied to the train from an overhead catenary system that would 

receive its power from the power distribution system. Train maintenance and layover facilities would be 

located at select locations along the HST line. This Program EIR/EIS analyzes the impacts from portions 

of the system that would be located within the broadly defined Bay Area to Central Valley region—

referred to as the study region in this Program EIR/EIS. 

Technology

Informed by previous studies and the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected stateof-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology for the proposed 

statewide system, which would serve the major metropolitan centers in California, including the study 

region. 

State-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems would be used. The steel-wheelon-steel-rail electrified train is proposed to be primarily on exclusive track, with small portions of the 

route on shared track with other passenger rail operations. The train track would be at grade, in an open 

trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical constraints. To reduce 

potential environmental impacts, extensive portions of many of the alignment alternatives are within or 

adjacent to existing rail or highway right-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel segments of the 

alignment are proposed through the mountain passes (e.g., Diablo Range/Pacheco Pass between south 

San Jose and the Merced). 

Service Levels

Most passenger service is assumed to run between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. By 2030, the proposed 

service would include approximately 124–139 weekday trains in each direction to serve the study region 

and the statewide intercity travel market, with 91–96 of the trains running between northern and 

southern California and the remaining 33–43 trains serving shorter distance markets. The proposed 

system would be capable of speeds in excess of 200 mph (322 kph), and the projected travel times 

would be designed to compete with air and auto travel. For example, the projected travel time by HST 

between San Francisco in the Bay Area and Los Angeles would be just over 2 and a half hours. 

A representative statewide system evaluated in this Program EIR/EIS was forecast to carry between 88 

and 117 million passengers in 2030, with the potential to accommodate higher ridership by adding trains. 

For a conservative assessment of potential environmental impacts, the higher ridership forecast has been 

used in describing the proposed HST system and its impacts, and is referred to as representative demand

ridership. However, for resource topics where the high-end ridership forecasts would result in potential 

benefits (e.g., energy, air quality, and travel conditions), additional analysis is included to address the 

impacts associated with the low-end forecasts. 

Determination of Range of Alternative Alignments and Station Location Options

The Authority and the FRA started developing the HST Alignment Alternatives by seeking to identify the 

most reasonable and practicable HST corridors, alignments, and station location options for analysis in 

this Program EIR/EIS. As part of this process, HST technologies and corridors previously considered were 

reevaluated, and a screening of potential alignment alternatives and station location options was 

conducted. This screening analyzed all reasonable and practical alignment alternatives and station 

location options within the selected HST corridors in the study region. 

The evaluation of potential HST corridors, alignment alternatives, and station location options used the 

following factors: extent of construction difficulty, environmental impacts, land use compatibility, rightof-way needs, potential connectivity/accessibility to other transportation facilities and services, and 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-6

ridership/revenue generation potential. The screening of alignment alternatives and station location 

options comprised the following key activities. 

• Review of past alignment alternatives and station location options identified within selected corridors 

defined in previous studies. 

• Identification through the environmental scoping process of alignment alternatives and station 

location options not previously evaluated. 

• Evaluation of alignment alternatives and station location options using standardized engineering, 

environmental, and financial criteria (described above) and evaluation methodologies at a consistent 

level of analysis. 

• Identification of the ability of alignment alternatives and station location options to meet defined 

objectives. 

The results of this analysis are documented in the Draft Alignment Alternatives and Potential Station 

Locations Options Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2006), 

presented at the Authority’s March 22, 2006, board meeting and in the Additional Potential HST 

Alignment and Stations Considered but Rejected Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal 

Railroad Administration 2006) presented at the Authority’s August 9, 2006, Board Meeting. Technical 

data, combined with public and agency input, provided the Authority and the FRA with the necessary 

information to focus further studies for the Program EIR/EIS on those alignment alternatives, station 

location options, and HST systems that represent a reasonable range of practicable alternatives to meet 

the project purpose and attain several objectives established by the Authority. Those objectives include: 

• Maximize ridership and revenue potential. 

• Maximize connectivity and accessibility. 

• Maximize compatibility with existing and planned development. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with geologic and soils constraints. 

• Maximize avoidance of areas with potential hazardous materials. 

• Minimize operating and capital costs. 

• Minimize impacts on natural resources. 

• Minimize impacts on social and economic resources. 

• Minimize impacts on cultural resources. 

Complex issues associated with the tunneling were addressed as part of the statewide program EIR/EIS 

process. This work focused on the feasibility, construction methods, and cost assumptions associated 

with proposed tunneling for the HST system and resulted in the Authority’s objective of minimizing the 

amount of tunneling required, particularly the use of long tunnels (more than 6 mi [10 km] long), due to 

cost, time of construction, and potential for delay. Tunnels more than 12 mi (19 km) long are generally 

considered infeasible for this project, and it is the Authority’s objective to cross major fault zones at 

grade. The technical information produced as part of the statewide program EIR/EIS is documented in 

the Tunneling Issues Report (California High-Speed Rail Authority January 2004). 

Alternative Alignments and Station Location Options

To facilitate analysis and presentation of the HST Alignment Alternatives in this Program EIR/EIS, the 

study region was divided into six corridors: (1) San Francisco to San Jose, (2) Oakland to San Jose, (3) 

San Jose to Central Valley, (4) East Bay to Central Valley, (5) San Francisco Bay Crossings, and (6) 

Central Valley. These corridors encompass considerable variations in terms of land use, terrain, and 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-7

construction configuration (mix of at-grade, aerial structure, and tunnel sections). The alignment 

alternatives and station location options considered in each corridor are defined in Table S.4-1. 

Table S.4-1 

Alignment Alternatives and Potential Station Location Options 

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative Alignment Alternative Description 

San Francisco 

to San Jose: 

Caltrain 

1 of 1 San Francisco to 

Dumbarton 

From San Francisco, this alignment alternative would follow 

south the Caltrain rail alignment and assumes that the HST 

system would share tracks with Caltrain commuter trains. The 

entire alignment would be grade separated. 1 of 1 Dumbarton to San 

Jose 

Station Location Options 

One of two: Transbay Transit Center or 4th and King 

Millbrae/SFO 

One of two: Redwood City or Palo Alto 

Oakland to San 

Jose: Niles/ 

I-880 

1 of 2 West Oakland to 

Niles Junction 

From Oakland, this alignment alternative would travel south 

following the Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR’s) Niles Subdivision 

Line (i.e., Hayward Line) and then transition to I-880. The 

alignment would be at-grade along the Niles Subdivision Line. 12th Street/City 

Center to Niles 

Junction 

1 of 2 Niles Junction to 

San Jose via 

Trimble 

The alignment alternative would be at-grade along the Niles 

Subdivision Line and on an aerial structure in the median of I880. The I-880 HST portion would mostly be on an aerial 

configuration from San Jose to Fremont. The Trimble Road 

segment would be on an aerial structure and in a tunnel 

(where adjacent to San Jose International Airport). 

Niles Junction to 

San Jose via I-880 

This alignment alternative would travel south following the 

UPRR’s Niles Subdivision Line (i.e., Hayward Line), then 

transition to I-880. The alignment would be at-grade along 

the Niles Subdivision Line and on an aerial structure in the 

median of I-880. The I-880 HST portion would mostly be on 

an aerial configuration from San Jose to Fremont. 

Station Location Options 

One of two: West Oakland/7th Street or 12th Street/City Center 

Coliseum/Airport 

One of two: Union City (BART) or Fremont (Warm Springs) 

San Jose to 

Central Valley: 

Pacheco Pass 

1 of 1 Pacheco This alignment alternative would extend south along the 

Caltrain/UPRR rail corridor through the Pacheco Pass and then 

the San Joaquin Valley along either Henry Miller Road 

(connecting to either the UPRR or BNSF) or north of the 

Grassland Ecological Area (GEA) connection to the BNSF. 

1 of 3 Henry Miller (UPRR 

Connection) 

Henry Miller (BNSF 

Connection)

GEA North 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-8

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative Alignment Alternative Description 

Station Location Options 

o San Jose (Diridon) 

o One of two stations: Morgan Hill (Caltrain) or Gilroy (Caltrain) 

East Bay to 

Central Valley: 

Altamont Pass

1 of 4 I-680/ 580/UPRR This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680, then use the I-680 alignment before transitioning to the I580 corridor (at the I-580/I-680 junction). 

I-580/ UPRR This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680, then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton before 

transitioning to the I-580 corridor through Livermore and the 

Altamont Pass to Tracy. 

Patterson 

Pass/UPRR 

This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680 then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton and 

Livermore before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through the 

Patterson Pass between Livermore and Tracy. 

UPRR This alignment alternative would extend east via a relatively 

direct routing (mostly in tunnel) between Niles Junction and I680, then use the UPRR alignment through Pleasanton and 

Livermore before transitioning to the I-580 corridor through the 

Altamont Pass to Tracy. 

1 of 4 Tracy Downtown 

(BNSF Connection) 

From Livermore, these alignments would pass through either 

downtown Tracy or to the current Tracy ACE station connection 

with either the BNSF or UPRR. Tracy ACE Station 

(BNSF Connection) 

Tracy ACE Station 

(UPRR Connection) 

Tracy Downtown 

(UPRR Connection) 

Station Location Options 

One of six stations, depending on the alignment alternative: Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd), Pleasanton (BART), 

Livermore (Downtown) , Livermore (I-580), Livermore (Greenville Road/UPRR), Livermore (Greenville Road/I-580) 

One of two stations, depending on the alignment alternative: Tracy (Downtown) or Tracy (ACE) 

San Francisco 

Bay Crossings 

1 of 2 Trans Bay Crossing 

– Transbay Transit 

Center 

This alignment alternative would connect the Oakland (West 

Oakland or 12th Street City Center) and San Francisco 

(Transbay Transit Center or 4th and King) HST stations via a 

new transbay tube. This alignment could serve either Altamont 

Pass or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives. Trans Bay Crossing 

– 4th & King 

1 of 6 

Dumbarton (High 

Bridge) 

This alignment alternative would serve the Altamont Pass 

alignment alternatives and link the East Bay to the San 

Francisco Peninsula in the vicinity of the existing Dumbarton 

Rail Bridge. Between Niles Junction and the Dumbarton Dumbarton 

(Low Bridge) 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-9

Corridor 

Possible 

Alignments 

Alignment 

Alternative Alignment Alternative Description 

Dumbarton (Tube) Bridge, this option would use the Centerville rail alignment. 

Design options for this alignment include use of an improved 

Dumbarton Rail Bridge (low level), a new high-level bridge, and 

a new transbay tube. 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(High Bridge) 

This alignment alternative would serve the Altamont Pass 

alignment alternatives and link the East Bay to the San 

Francisco Peninsula in the vicinity of the existing Dumbarton 

Rail Bridge. Between Niles Junction and the Dumbarton 

Bridge, this alignment alternative would use an existing utility 

alignment and a new alignment through the Don Edwards 

Natural Wildlife Refuge. Design options for this alignment 

include use of an improved Dumbarton Rail Bridge (low level), 

a new high-level bridge, and a new transbay tube. 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Low Bridge) 

Fremont Central 

Park 

(Tube) 

Station Location Options 

Union City (Shinn) 

Central Valley 

1 of 6 

BNSF – UPRR This alignment alternative would use various connectors 

between the BNSF and UPRR alignments. 

BNSF This alignment alternative would connect with either the 

Altamont or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives, using 

principally the BNSF rail line in the Central Valley. 

UPRR N/S This alignment alternative would connect with either the 

Altamont or Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives, using 

principally the UPRR rail line in the Central Valley. 

BNSF Castle This alignment alternative would diverge from the BNSF 

alignment to serve the Castle Air Force Base (AFB). 

UPRR – BNSF 

Castle 

This alignment alternative would diverge from the UPRR - BNSF 

alignment to serve the Castle AFB. 

UPRR – BNSF This alignment alternative would use various connectors 

between the UPRR and BNSF alignments. 

Station Location Options 

One of two stations for Modesto, depending on the alignment alternative: Downtown Modesto or Briggsmore 

(Amtrak). 

One of two stations for Merced, depending on the alignment alternative: Downtown Merced or Castle AFB. 

The alignment alternatives and stations location options analyzed in this Program EIR/EIS are shown in 

Figure S.4-1. For purposes of this analysis, conceptual designs were developed for all of the alignment 

alternatives and station location options carried forward that include plan and profile sheets, cross 

sections, and station descriptions (Appendices 2-D through 2-F). Conceptual designs are based on 

Engineering Criteria (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2004). 

As part of the development of the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, some HST Alignment Alternatives were 

considered for regional rail “overlay” services that would be implemented by other transportation 

agencies in cooperation with the Authority. Overlay services would involve operating regional commuter 

trains on the HST infrastructure and serving additional non-HST regional rail stations. Regional rail 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-10

overlay services are not integral to the HST system and are not considered alternatives in this Program 

EIR/EIS; however, the development of the regional rail plan is considered in the cumulative analysis of 

HST Alignment Alternatives as a related but separate potential project. 

Network Alternatives

Information for a range of HST Network Alternatives is also reported to better understand the 

implications of selection of certain alignment alternatives and station location options. A network 

alternative consists of a combination of alignment alternatives and station location options (i.e., 

combining the corridors described on page S-6 and listed in Table S.4-1, to provide an HST network in 

the study region as part of a statewide HST system). To provide a broad range of information about 

network alternatives, several operating scenarios for combinations of terminus stations were investigated, 

with one exception (a network alternative that terminates in Union City), the network alternatives range 

from one to three of the major city centers in the Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) 

having direct HST service. Representative network alternatives are defined in Chapter 2 and evaluated in 

Chapter 7 of the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

S-1.4 High-Speed Train Network Alternatives Comparisons 

The HST Network Alternatives vary in their ability to meet the purpose, need, and objectives of the HST 

system, and they provide additional data to inform the future identification of preferred alignment 

alternatives and station location options. Although HST Alignment Alternatives and station location 

options were screened and evaluated to identify those that are likely to be reasonable and practicable 

and meet the project’s purpose, need, and objectives, the representative network alternatives have not 

yet been so evaluated. The network alternatives were developed to enable an evaluation and 

comparison of how various combinations of alignment alternatives would meet the project’s purpose and 

need and how each would perform as an HST network that is part of a statewide HST system (e.g., travel 

times between various station locations, anticipated ridership, operating and maintenance costs, energy 

consumption, auto trip diversions). The different system characteristics, as well as environmental impacts 

and factors of the network alternatives, present complex choices that will be better supported and 

informed following public review and comment on this Program EIR/EIS. 

A summary comparison and important differences among network alternatives are described below. 

Table S.5-1 presents a summary of characteristics and potential impacts for the 21 representative 

network alternatives. These representative network alternatives present a range of reasonable 

alternatives among the three basic approaches for linking the Bay Area and Central Valley: Altamont 

Pass (11 network alternatives); Pacheco Pass (6 network alternatives); and Pacheco Pass with Altamont 

Pass (local service) (4 network alternatives). The impact quantities provided are prior to any mitigation. 

A more extensive presentation of characteristics and potential impacts is provided in Chapter 7 of the 

Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

S-1.4.1 Travel Conditions/Service to Urban Centers/International Airports 

The HST Network Alternatives vary in the degree they serve urban areas/centers and international 

airports. All but one3

 of the network alternatives provide direct HST services to (i.e., includes a HST 

station within) one and up to three of the major urban centers in the Bay Area—San Francisco, San Jose, 

and Oakland. Some of the network alternatives provide direct service to the international airports at San 

Francisco and/or Oakland. Each network alternative provides service to particular travel corridors and 

 

3

 One network alternative would not directly serve San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose but would rather 

pass over the Altamont Pass and terminate at Union City. 
 Table S.5-1: Summary of Characteristics and Impacts for the Network Alternati

Characteristic/Impacts 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose — via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland – 

no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San Francisco 

via Transbay tube 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

Figure # (see Chapter 7 of the Draft Program EIR/EIS) 7.2-1 7.2-2 7.2-3 7.2-4 7.2-5 7.2-6 7.2-7 7.2-8 7.2-9 7.2-10 7.2-11 7.2-12 7.2Length (miles) 203.34 182.16 241.16 160.18 191.56 170.86 157.93 213.30 244.70 179.64 199.11 267.53 256Number of stations 9 8 11 6 8 7 5 9 11 8 9 7 7 Capital costs (billions $) $12.7 $10.0 $15.1 $7.7 $11.0 $8.2 $6.0 $12.6 $14.5 $12.9 $14.8 $12.4 $11Capital costs/mile of alignment (millions) $62.5 $54.9 $62.6 $48.1 $57.4 $48.0 $38.0 $59.1 $59.3 $71.8 $74.3 $46.3 $45Ridership (millions annual) 87.91 88.01 81.13 94.65 93.88 94.39 83.49 90.75 85.22 95.94 89.62 93.33 91.Revenue (millions annual) $2,844 $2,881 $2,625 $3,176 $3,127 $3,153 $2,701 $2,743 $2,733 $3,164 $2,884 $3,090 $3,0Annual operating costs (millions) $1,099 $1,085 $1,098 $1,076 $1,124 $1,093 $1,073 $1,115 $1,123 $1,106 $1,093 $1,182 $1,1Bridge over bay=B Transbay tube=T B — B — B — — B — T T — — SF, Oakland, San Jose - # served 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 3 1 3 2 2 International airports SFO OAK SFO/OAK — SFO OAK — SFO SFO/OAK OAK OAK SFO OAExpress Train Travel Times (Hours.Min) 

San Francisco - Los Angeles 2.36 — 2.36 — 2.36 — — 2.36 3.17 2.31 2.31 2.38 — Oakland - Los Angeles — 2.23 2.23 — — 2.23 — — 2.23 2.23 2.23 — 2.3San Jose - Los Angeles 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 — — — 2.37 2.19 — 2.19 2.09 2.0San Francisco - Sacramento 1.06 — 1.06 — 1.06 — — 1.06 1.39 0.57 0.57 1.47 — Oakland - Sacramento — 0.53 0.53 — — 0.53 — — 0.53 0.53 0.53 — 1.3San Jose - Sacramento 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 — — — 1.03 0.49 — 0.49 1.18 1.1Union City - Los Angeles — — — — — — 2.13 — — — — — — 
Table S.5-1: Continued 

Characteristic/Impacts 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose — via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland – 

no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San Francisco 

via Transbay tube 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

Union City - Sacramento — — — — — — 0.43 — — — — — — 

Farmland (acres) 764.2 761.9 764.2 761.9 757.8 755.5 755.5 757.8 761.9 755.5 761.9 1,372.3 1,37

Prime farmland (acres) 429.1 426.8 429.1 426.8 422.7 420.3 420.3 422.7 426.8 420.3 426.8 663.3 669

Floodplains (acres) direct impacts 308.3 218.6 315.3 211.6 270.7 181.1 177.6 317.7 314.5 181.1 218.6 520.8 477

Floodplains/linear mile of alignment 1.52 1.20 1.31 1.32 1.41 1.06 1.12 1.49 1.29 1.01 1.10 1.95 1.8

Streams (linear feet) 16,824 17,660 19,814 14,670 15,995 16,831 14,432 17,481 20,273 16,831 17,660 20,276 21,7Waterbodies (lakes + SF bay) (acres) 39.6 2.3 39.6 2.3 39.6 2.3 2.3 39.6 2.3 38.8 38.8 3.8 4.Wetlands (acres) 45.9 12.3 46.3 12.0 44.4 10.8 10.7 44.4 12.4 33.6 35.1 15.6 17Nonwetland waters (linear feet) 16,773 14,032 16,932 13,577 15,947 13,502 13,113 15,947 14,662 13,502 14,032 14,395 14,5Species (special status plants) 56 40 57 39 56 39 38 56 56 40 42 58 4Species (special status wildlife) 50 44 50 43 49 44 36 49 50 43 43 53 4Cultural resources (number) 149 128 173 93 144 112 88 180 203 112 117 165 104(f)/6(f) Resources (0-150 feet) 22 20 28 14 14 12 9 20 30 13 21 16 1Station Location Options 

Transbay Transit Center ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Millbrae/SFO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Redwood City (Caltrain) ■ ■ ■ ■ Palo Alto (Caltrain) ■ ■ West Oakland/7th Street ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Coliseum/Airport ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 
Table S.5-1: Continued 

Characteristic/Impacts 

Altamont Pass 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

San Francisco, Oakland & 

San Jose Termini 

San Jose Terminus 

 San Francisco Terminus 

Oakland Terminus 

Union City Terminus 

San Francisco & San Jose — via SF Peninsula 

 San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland – 

no Bay Crossing 

Oakland & San Francisco – 

via Transbay tube 

San Jose, Oakland, & San Francisco 

via Transbay tube 

San Francisco & San Jose Termini 

Oakland & San Jose Termini 

Union City (BART) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Union City (Shinn) ■ ■Fremont (Warm Springs) ■ ■ San Jose (Diridon) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Gilroy (Caltrain) ■ ■ Pleasanton (I-680/Bernal Rd) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Tracy (Downtown) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Modesto (Downtown) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Briggsmore (Amtrak) ■ ■ Merced (Downtown) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Notes ■ indicates stations served 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-11

urban areas, ranging from direct service along the Caltrain corridor to downtown San Francisco to direct 

service to San Jose Station (Diridon) and/or to downtown Oakland. Some would provide direct service to 

southern Santa Clara County, southern Alameda County, and/or the Tri-Valley area. 

Connectivity with and enhancement of other transit systems (e.g., ACE, Caltrain, Capital Corridor, BART, 

Valley Transportation Authority) also varies among the network alternatives. The network alternatives 

would greatly increase the capacity for intercity and commuter travel and reduce existing automobile 

traffic in specific travel corridors. Full grade-separation along rail corridors included in the network 

alternative would improve local traffic flow and reduce air pollution at existing rail crossings. 

Direct service to more of the study region would result in greater benefits for travel conditions, including 

increased connectivity to other transit systems, increased convenience, increased reliability, and improved 

travel times. In particular, a direct connection to the San Francisco International Airport, the region’s hub 

airport, and/or to the Oakland International Airport provides increased connectivity for air transportation 

system riders. 

The combinations and variations of HST station location options and associated direct service areas for 

each network alternative are described in detail in the travel conditions sections shown in Chapter 7 of 

the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

S-1.4.2 Capital and Operating Costs 

Capital Costs

Capital costs for the HST Network Alternatives range from $6.0 billion for Altamont Pass Union City 

terminus—the shortest network alternative—to $20.4 billion for a combination of the Altamont and 

Pacheco Network options with service to all three urban centers—the longest network alternative. The 

average cost per mile ranges from $37.5 million for a Pacheco Pass alternative terminating at San Jose to 

$74.3 million for a Pacheco Pass alignment serving San Francisco and Oakland with a new transbay tube. 

The highest costs per mile are for the network alternatives that include a new San Francisco Bay crossing 

in a tube or a bridge. Network alternatives that include a new transbay tube between Oakland and San 

Francisco exhibit costs per mile of between $61.4 and $74.3 million. Network alternatives that include a 

new bridge crossing of the Bay near Dumbarton exhibit costs between $54.0 and $62.6 million per mile. 

Inclusion of a new transbay tube is estimated to cost from $3.8 to $4.0 billion. A new Dumbarton Bridge 

is estimated to cost $1.3 to $1.7 billion. Crossing the Bay in a tube in the Dumbarton Corridor would cost 

an additional $362 million compared to the high bridge option4

. 

The remaining network alternatives range in cost per mile between $37.5 for a Pacheco alignment ending 

in San Jose and $59.3 for an Altamont alignment that would circle the bay and serve San Jose, Oakland, 

and San Francisco with no bay crossing. 

Operating Issues and Costs

The cost to operate and maintain an HST system varies proportionately with the length of the network 

and the frequency of the service to be provided. For the comparison presented in this document, the 

frequency of trains serving the Bay Area was kept consistent between the network alternatives 

considered. The systemwide operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are the lowest for the Altamont 

Pass network alternatives, ranging from $1.07 to $1.12 billion per year, because of the substantially 

 

4

 Unit costs for the Oakland to San Francisco transbay tube, Dumbarton railbridge (high-bridge and low-bridge options), and 

Dumbarton tube were obtained from MTC as part of the Regional Rail planning studies. 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-12

shorter length for Sacramento to Bay Area services. The systemwide O&M costs for the Pacheco Pass 

network alternatives are approximately $80 million per year more than the Altamont Pass network 

alternatives serving the same markets. 

The Altamont Pass network alternatives would require the system to split in two separate directions to 

serve both San Jose and San Francisco given a constant number of trains. This decreases the frequency 

of service from other markets in the state to these stations by a factor of two, as compared to network 

alternatives using the Pacheco Pass alignment alternatives. Based on forecasted travel demand, twothirds of the trains would be directed to San Francisco and one-third of the trains would be directed to 

San Jose. Serving San Jose and both sides of the Bay Area (San Francisco Peninsula and East Bay) 

would require a three-direction split for the Altamont Pass network alternatives and a two-direction split 

for the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. 

HST operations would need to be coordinated and integrated with existing and planned commuter rail 

services, including Caltrain service on the San Francisco Peninsula and ACE service in the I-580 corridor. 

S-1.4.3 Travel Times 

Express train travel times from San Francisco to Los Angeles vary by 2 minutes between the Pacheco 

Pass and Altamont Pass network alternatives, assuming a new Bay Crossing at Dumbarton for the 

Altamont Pass. On the Altamont Pass network alternatives, this trip would take 2 hours and 36 minutes 

and 2 additional minutes for the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. For Oakland, the express trip to Los 

Angeles would take 7 minutes longer for the Pacheco Pass network alternatives compared to the 

Altamont Pass network alternatives, which would take 2 hours and 23 minutes. A San Jose to Los 

Angeles express trip over the Pacheco Pass (via Henry Miller Road) would take 2 hours and 19 minutes 

and would be 10 minutes faster than the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

Larger differences are apparent for the express trips between San Francisco and Sacramento. For the 

Altamont Pass network alternatives5

, this trip would take 1 hour and 6 minutes. The Pacheco Pass 

network alternatives would take an additional 41 minutes. An express trip between Oakland and 

Sacramento would take 53 minutes over the Altamont Pass and an additional 45 minutes over the 

Pacheco Pass. From San Jose to Sacramento, the express travel time over the Pacheco Pass would be 

49 minutes, with an additional 29 minutes over the Pacheco Pass. 

S-1.4.4 Ridership 

The base (low-end) ridership forecasts for the network alternatives range from 79.7 million passengers a 

year by 2030 for the Pacheco Pass San Jose (only) terminus—the shortest Pacheco Pass network 

alternative—to 96.2 million passengers a year by 2030 for the Pacheco Pass plus Altamont Pass (local 

service) to San Francisco and San Jose network alternative. The base (low-end) revenue for the network 

alternatives ranges from $2.63 to $3.18 billion per year by 2030. Table S.5-1 summarizes the total base 

ridership and revenue forecast for each network alternative. 

The results indicate that frequency of service is a major factor toward high ridership and revenue for the 

network alternatives. For example, the Altamont Pass option with service to San Francisco (no direct 

links to San Jose or Oakland) has higher ridership and revenue forecast than for the base Altamont Pass 

network alternative (with direct service to San Francisco and Oakland), where total frequency of service 

is split between the line to San Francisco and the line to San Jose. The ridership and revenue is less for 

network alternatives where there is a reduced frequency of service to the major markets. Additional 

frequency of service (along with higher operational costs) would be needed to increase ridership for 

these network alternatives. 

 

5

 For Altamont Pass options with a new Bay Crossing at Dumbarton 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-13

S-1.4.5 Farmland Impacts 

Impacts to farmland range from 755.5 (306 ha) to 764.2 ac (309 ha) for the Altamont Pass network 

alternatives and from 1,372.3 (555 ha) to 1,378.7 ac (558 ha) for the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. 

The higher Pacheco Pass numbers are in part due to the use of the BNSF-UPRR, rather than the UPRR 

N/S alignment, in the Central Valley for the representative Pacheco network alternatives. Use of the 

BNSF-UPRR alignment adds 240 additional ac (97 ha) of impacts to farmlands for the Pacheco Pass 

network alternatives. The Pacheco Pass network alternatives would have higher farmland impacts than 

the Altamont Pass network alternatives, even if the 240 additional ac (97 ha) for the Central Valley BNSFUPRR alignment were removed. Acreages for the combined Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass network 

alternatives range from 1,380 (558.5 ha) to 1384.1 ac (560.13 ha) and include the lower impact UPRR 

alignment in the Central Valley. 

A similar pattern is apparent for the prime farmland, with Altamont Pass network alternatives impacts 

ranging from 420.3 (170 ha) to 429.1 ac (174 ha) and Pacheco Pass network alternatives ranging from 

663.3 (268 ha) to 669.7 ac (271 ha). Use of the BNSF-UPRR alignment adds 57 additional ac (23 ha) of 

impacts to prime farmlands for the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. The Pacheco Pass network 

alternatives would have higher prime farmland impacts than the Altamont Pass network alternatives, 

even if the 57 additional ac (23 ha) for the Central Valley BNSF-UPRR alignment were removed. The 

combined Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass network alternatives show a range between 760.4 (308 ha) 

and 764.5 ac (309 ha). 

S-1.4.6 Floodplain Impacts 

Impacts to floodplain for the network alternatives range from 177.6 (72 ha) to 315.3 ac (127.6 ha) for 

the Altamont Pass network alternatives. The Pacheco Pass network alternatives show a floodplain impact 

range of 424.9 (171.95 ha) to 573.4 ac (232 ha). Use of the BNSF-UPRR alignment adds 60.1 additional 

(24 ha) ac of floodplain impacts to the Pacheco Pass network alternatives. The Pacheco Pass network 

alternatives would have higher floodplain impacts than the Altamont Pass network alternatives, even if 

the 60.1 (24 ha) additional ac for the Central Valley BNSF-UPRR Alignment were removed. Acreage 

impacts per linear mile range from a low of 1.01 ac (0 ha) for the Altamont Oakland and San Francisco 

via a transbay tube alignment to a high of 1.99 ac (1 ha) for the Pacheco Pass network alternative 

terminating in San Jose. 

S-1.4.7 Biological Impacts 

Streams and Lakes/San Francisco Bay

On a per mile basis, the linear feet of stream crossings range from 75.79 (31 ha) to 133.97 (54 ha). The 

network alternatives that cross the San Francisco Bay affect 38.8 (17 ha) to 40.3 (16 ha) additional ac of 

water. 

Wetlands/Waters of the United States

Direct wetland impacts of between 44.4 (18 ha) and 56.1 ac (23 ha) occur when the network alternatives 

cross the San Francisco Bay on a new bridge in the Dumbarton area. The new Dumbarton alignment and 

bridge account for 33.9 ac (14 ha) of direct wetland impacts. Direct wetland impacts of between 33.6 (14 

ha) and 40.2 ac (16 ha) occur when the network alternatives have a transbay crossing of San Francisco 

Bay. The transbay crossing alignment accounts for 22.83 ac (9 ha) of direct wetland impacts. Absent 

Bay crossings, the direct wetland impacts range between 10.7 (4 ha) and 17.5 ac (7 ha) for Altamont 

Pass and Pacheco Pass network alternatives and up to 25.4 ac (10 ha) for the combined Altamont and 

Pacheco alternatives. The shortest network alternative—Altamont Pass with a Union City Terminus—

would affect the least amount of wetlands area. The shortest Pacheco Pass network alternative, with a 

terminus in San Jose, would directly affect 15.5 ac (6 ha). The Pacheco Pass network alternatives would 

directly affect wetlands in the Central Valley along Henry Miller Road. 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-14

Impacts to waters of the United States vary among the network alternatives, with a range from 13,113 ft 

(3,997 m) to 19,891 ft (6,063 m) Higher impacts (more than 15,947 ft [4,861 m]) occur for network 

alternatives that cross the San Francisco Bay on a bridge structure in the Dumbarton area. 

Endangered Species

The number of plant and wildlife species affected generally increases as the network alternative lengths 

increase and vice-versa. The lowest number of special-status plant species present is 38 for the Altamont 

Pass with a Union City terminus—the shortest network alternative. This alternative would not extend up 

either side of the Bay, where there are a number of additional species associated with the ecology of the 

Bay. For the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, the San Jose terminus is shortest and would affect the 

fewest number of plant species—46. The highest number of plant species present is 71 for the combined 

Pacheco Pass and Altamont Pass network alternatives serving San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose 

without a bay crossing. 

The 36 wildlife species present for the Altamont with Union City terminus network alternative is the 

lowest number, again for the shortest network alternative. It would not extend up either side of the Bay, 

where there are a number of additional species associated with the ecology of the Bay. For the Pacheco 

Pass network alternatives, the San Jose terminus is shortest and would affect the fewest number of 

wildlife species—38. The largest number of species present—58—would be for the combined Pacheco 

Pass and Altamont Pass network alternatives serving San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland without a bay 

crossing. 

S-1.4.8 Cultural/4(f)/6(f) Resources 

The number of cultural resources affected for the HST Network Alternatives varies from 78 for the 

Pacheco Pass network alternative terminating at San Jose to 220 for the combined Pacheco Pass and 

Altamont Pass network alternative serving San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose without a Bay Bridge. 

Among the Altamont Pass network alternatives, the Union City terminus is the shortest and has the 

lowest number of cultural resources at 88. It does not extend up either side of the Bay, where there are 

more known cultural resources. Both the peninsula and East Bay contain older, more developed areas, 

and the potential to find cultural resources is high. The Altamont Pass network alternative serving San 

Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland with no Bay crossing extends up both sides of the Bay and has the 

highest potential to affect cultural resources in the urban areas. This network alternative shows 203 

potentially affected cultural resources. 

Among the Pacheco Pass network alternatives, the San Jose terminus is shortest and has the lowest 

number of cultural resources at 78. It also does not extend up either side of the Bay, where there are 

more known cultural resources. The Altamont Pass network alternative serving San Jose, San Francisco, 

and Oakland extends up both sides of the Bay and has the highest potential for effects on cultural 

resources. This network alternative shows 193 potentially affected cultural resources. Use of the BNSFUPRR alignment for the Pacheco Pass network alternatives reduces the number of cultural resources by 

39. 

The highest number of potentially affected resources—220—would be for the combined Pacheco Pass 

and Altamont Pass network alternative serving San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco without a Bay 

crossing. 

The number of parklands and wildlife refuges within 150 ft (46 m) of the network alternatives varies from 

six for the shorter Pacheco Pass with a San Jose terminus to 35 for the combined Pacheco Pass and 

Altamont Pass network alternative with San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose service without a Bay 

crossing. 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-15

S-1.4.9 Visual/Aesthetic Impacts 

Each of the network alternatives would have visual impacts on the various landscape typologies along the 

alignments. Particular impacts would occur at specific locations. Visual simulations of various locations 

are shown in Section 3.9, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Overall, the network alternatives are rated as 

low to medium impacts, with no major overall differences among the network alternatives. 

S-1.4.10 Noise/Vibration Impacts 

Overall noise impacts for the network alternatives are rated as medium for all alternatives. Vibration 

impacts are typically rated as medium, although for some network alternatives, vibration impacts are 

rated as medium to high. 

S-1.4.11 Traffic/Air Impacts/Energy 

The network alternatives have the potential to reduce overall air pollution, total energy consumption, and 

traffic congestion as compared to the No Project Alternative. Comparing the energy required by each 

mode to carry a passenger 1 mile (1.6 km), an HST needs only about one-third that required by an 

airplane and one-fifth that required by a commuter automobile trip. Comparing the pollutant burden 

generated by each mode to carry a passenger 1 mile (1.6 km), an HST generates approximately less than 

one-tenth of the pollutants (excluding CO2) that would be generated by an airplane or by a commuter 

automobile trip. The representative base HST forecast would result in a reduction of 22 million barrels of 

oil and 17.6 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually by 2030, as compared to the No Project Alternative. 

Diversions from the automobile to HST could lead to a projected 5% statewide reduction in vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) on the highway system, with VMT reductions of between 7% and 12% in Bay Area and 

Central Valley counties. 

The network alternatives with the highest ridership levels show the greatest reductions in VMT on the 

roadways in the region. The reduction in VMTs results in a corresponding reduction in vehicular 

emissions, energy consumption, and traffic. Therefore, the network alternatives with the highest 

ridership would have the greatest traffic, energy and air quality benefits. 

S-1.4.12 Growth Impacts 

Compared to the No Project condition, the study area population in 2030 is expected to increase from 

about 1.6% with the Pacheco Pass network alternatives to about 2.2% with the Altamont Pass network 

alternatives (149,000 to 199,800), employment is expected to increase from by 1.7% with the Pacheco 

Pass network alternatives to 1.8% with the Altamont Pass network alternatives (96,000 to 102,100 jobs), 

and urbanized areas are expected to increase from by 0.1% with Pacheco Pass network alternatives to 

0.6% with Altamont Pass network alternatives (9,650 ac [3,905 ha] to 14,500 ac [5,868 ha]). 

Highest growth rates are expected in Madera and Merced Counties, plus Stanislaus County for the 

Altamont Pass network alternatives. Highest urbanization rates are expected in Madera, Merced, and 

Fresno Counties, plus San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties for the Altamont Pass network alternatives. 

HST would have similar growth inducement potential regardless of network alternative. Oakland and San 

Francisco termini options have similar overall growth potential, but there is a spatial shift between East 

Bay and Peninsula. Service termination in San Jose would lower areawide growth inducement. HST 

station options have similar systemwide growth inducement potential. Downtown HST station location 

options have lower urbanization rates for their home county. 

S-1.5 Areas of Controversy 

In considering a choice of alignment alternatives and station location options to form an HST network in 

the study region, the Authority will take into account potential impacts on natural resources, cost, travel 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-16

conditions, effects on travel time and ridership, and public and agency input. Other considerations might 

be possible modifications to alignment alternatives by using more costly designs and construction 

techniques (e.g., tunnels and elevated guideways), or moving the location of alignments for functional or 

cost reasons or to avoid or minimize impacts on sensitive resources. The following are the known 

principal areas of controversy: 

• Selection of an HST network with appropriate service to the Bay Area, including choice of mountain 

crossing, choice of alignments, location of stations, and number of stations directly served. 

• Impacts to biological resources and wildlife areas, particularly related to the San Francisco Bay 

Crossings. 

• Impacts to urban areas, mostly to the result of noise and visual effects. 

S-1.6 Avoidance and Minimization 

As currently planned, the HST system would avoid and minimize many potential negative environmental 

consequences. Conceptual designs for the HST Alignment Alternatives meet the project objectives and 

design criteria, which set specific goals to avoid and minimize negative environmental consequences. 

Chapter 3 of the Draft Program EIR/EIS includes in each topic area a discussion of mitigation strategies. 

In addition, design and construction practices have been identified that would be employed as the HST 

system is developed further in the project-level environmental review, final design, and construction 

stages. Key aspects of the design practices include (i.e., are not limited to) the following. 

• Minimize impact footprint and associated direct impacts to farmlands, parklands, biological, and water 

resources through maximum use of existing transportation corridors. 

• Minimize impact to farmlands and associated growth through the selection of multimodal 

transportation hubs for potential HST station locations that would maximize access and connectivity 

as well as provide for efficient (transit-oriented) growth centered on these station locations. 

• Increase safety and circulation and potentially reduce air pollution and noise impacts, through use of 

grade separation at road crossings, of considerable portions of adjacent existing services with 

construction of the planned HST system. 

• Pursue agreements with owners/rail operators to place the HST alignment within existing rail 

rights-of-way, to reduce the need for additional right-of-way and minimize potential impacts to 

agricultural resources and other natural resources. 

• Cooperate with regulatory agencies to develop acceptable specific design and construction standards 

for stream crossings, including (i.e., not limited to) maintaining open surface (bridged versus closed 

culvert) crossings, infrastructure setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment-controlling 

excavation/fill practices, and other best management practices. 

• Fully line tunnels with impermeable material to prevent infiltration of groundwater or surface waters 

to the extent possible based on available geologic information and previous tunneling projects in 

proximity to proposed tunnels. 

• Where there is potential for significant barrier effects that could divide wildlife populations or habitat 

areas or impede wildlife migration corridors, underpasses or overpasses or appropriate passageways 

will be designed during project-level environmental review for implementation at reasonable intervals 

during construction to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to wildlife movement. 

• The potential impacts associated with construction access roads would be greatly limited, and 

avoided altogether through sensitive areas, by using in-line construction (i.e., by using the new rail 

infrastructure as it is built to transport equipment to and from the construction site and transporting 

excavated materials away from the construction area to appropriate reuse [e.g., as fill material, 
Draft 

Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS 

Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-17

aggregate for new concrete] or disposal sites). To avoid creating access roads in sensitive areas, 

necessary geologic exploration would be conducted using helicopter transport for drilling equipment 

to minimize surface disruption, followed by site restoration on the completion of work. 

S-1.7 Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have 

participated in the development of this Draft Program EIR/EIS and, in accordance with the memorandum 

of understanding between FRA and EPA for this environmental review, will be consulted concerning the 

selection of the preferred alignment alternative and the route most likely to yield the least 

environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), which will be identified in the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. 

S-1.8 Public and Agency Involvement 

Public and agency involvement was conducted as part of this program environmental process. 

Involvement was accomplished through a variety of means, including the scoping process, which included 

a series of public and agency scoping meetings, consultation meetings with federal and state resource 

agency staff representatives throughout the environmental process, informational meetings with 

interested groups and agencies, presentations and briefings to a broad spectrum of interest groups, 

information materials (such as a series of fact sheets), the Authority’s Web site presenting information 

about the proposed project and study evaluations, noticed public meetings of the Authority’s governing 

board at which key policy issues and decisions were raised and discussed and opportunities for public 

comment were provided, and public circulation and posting on the Authority’s website of this Draft 

Program EIR/EIS. 

S-1.9 Next Steps in the Environmental Process 

This Program EIR/EIS considers the HST Alignment Alternatives and station location options and the HST 

Network Alternatives for the study region at a program level of environmental analysis. After considering 

public and agency comment, the Authority and the FRA will identify preferred alignment alternatives, 

station location options, and a preferred network alternative. The Authority and FRA will prepare a final 

Program EIR/EIS, which will include responses to comments and a description of the preferred alignment 

and station location options for the Bay Area to Central Valley. 

At the completion of this program environmental process, the Authority expects to be able to certify the 

Program EIR/EIS and make findings for compliance with CEQA, the FRA expects to be able to issue a 

Record of Decision for compliance with NEPA, and both agencies expect to be able to make various 

determinations. 

After completing the program environmental process, preliminary engineering and project-level 

environmental review would commence in the study region to the extent needed to assess site-specific 

issues and potential environmental impacts not already addressed in this Program EIR/EIS. Project-level 

environmental review would focus on a portion or portions of the proposed HST system and would 

provide further analysis of potential impacts and mitigation at an appropriate site-specific level of detail to 

obtain needed permits and to implement HST projects. Also, after completing this program 

environmental process, the Authority would begin working with local governments, transportation 

agencies, and private parties to identify right-of-way preservation needs and protective advance 

acquisition opportunities consistent with state and federal authority requirements.